Literature DB >> 21844339

Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication.

Dorea Ruggles1, Hari Bharadwaj, Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham.   

Abstract

"Normal hearing" is typically defined by threshold audibility, even though everyday communication relies on extracting key features of easily audible sound, not on sound detection. Anecdotally, many normal-hearing listeners report difficulty communicating in settings where there are competing sound sources, but the reasons for such difficulties are debated: Do these difficulties originate from deficits in cognitive processing, or differences in peripheral, sensory encoding? Here we show that listeners with clinically normal thresholds exhibit very large individual differences on a task requiring them to focus spatial selective auditory attention to understand one speech stream when there are similar, competing speech streams coming from other directions. These individual differences in selective auditory attention ability are unrelated to age, reading span (a measure of cognitive function), and minor differences in absolute hearing threshold; however, selective attention ability correlates with the ability to detect simple frequency modulation in a clearly audible tone. Importantly, we also find that selective attention performance correlates with physiological measures of how well the periodic, temporal structure of sounds above the threshold of audibility are encoded in early, subcortical portions of the auditory pathway. These results suggest that the fidelity of early sensory encoding of the temporal structure in suprathreshold sounds influences the ability to communicate in challenging settings. Tests like these may help tease apart how peripheral and central deficits contribute to communication impairments, ultimately leading to new approaches to combat the social isolation that often ensues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21844339      PMCID: PMC3174666          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1108912108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  47 in total

1.  Detection of synchrony in the activity of auditory nerve fibers by octopus cells of the mammalian cochlear nucleus.

Authors:  D Oertel; R Bal; S M Gardner; P H Smith; P X Joris
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-10-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Correlation between brainstem and cortical auditory processes in normal and language-impaired children.

Authors:  Brad Wible; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2005-01-05       Impact factor: 13.501

4.  Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Erol J Ozmeral; Norbert Kopco; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer.

Authors:  Mathieu Lavandier; John F Culling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Object-based auditory and visual attention.

Authors:  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-04-07       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 7.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

Authors:  R Desimone; J Duncan
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.449

Review 8.  The emergence of cognitive hearing science.

Authors:  Stig Arlinger; Thomas Lunner; Björn Lyxell; M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2009-10

9.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening.

Authors:  Gregory J H Colflesh; Andrew R A Conway
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08

10.  Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing.

Authors:  Olaf Strelcyk; Torsten Dau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  83 in total

1.  Why middle-aged listeners have trouble hearing in everyday settings.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 10.834

2.  Using individual differences to test the role of temporal and place cues in coding frequency modulation.

Authors:  Kelly L Whiteford; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The neural encoding of formant frequencies contributing to vowel identification in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Kelly Tremblay; Christopher G Clinard; Richard A Wright; Elad Sagi; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: Manifestations and mechanisms.

Authors:  M Charles Liberman; Sharon G Kujawa
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  A comparison of spectral magnitude and phase-locking value analyses of the frequency-following response to complex tones.

Authors:  Li Zhu; Hari Bharadwaj; Jing Xia; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds.

Authors:  Golbarg Mehraei; Andreu Paredes Gallardo; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Hearing impairments hidden in normal listeners.

Authors:  Shihab A Shamma
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Individual differences reveal correlates of hidden hearing deficits.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Salwa Masud; Golbarg Mehraei; Sarah Verhulst; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  A test of model classes accounting for individual differences in the cocktail-party effect.

Authors:  Robert A Lutfi; Briana Rodriguez; Jungmee Lee; Torben Pastore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Rapid acquisition of auditory subcortical steady state responses using multichannel recordings.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 3.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.